LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




DDDD5D5SD7E 



A." 



* » - • A^ 
■ftp 









.*'■ 



^ 



q " # 



9 / -* 









1 



,.«' 



• I 



o • » 







, - •» J. ■- ■' - », »-■ "-^ - » • » \ ■ 



,^- - 



v-o.^- 



.-'^^^ 






>y 



•^AL 



^, 



<.. '- 









/'^\ %|# 



■'^^ ' 






iv" 





















^V 



'-^..^ ^-.r ' ^^--^^ 



:^- 









o V 



1 O ^'^^r. C^ 



VK,^ 



1 o V'„ c^ 



^. 






» 










'.rv«>" 






<^ 'o. » 



It 






vr^-X ' 



-^-> 



£,v/' 



?^'^P> .^>''" ■■'^ 






^^■. 






* < 

'?>■■ ^ -. 



^. - c « e ' -V 



Y-"" "'^^ 



V ' ' ' "' 






V * ' ' ' ^ 



^ -.<?- 



^3 



-^o 






-7*1, 



•^' 



V 



\^ 



f** 









:» 



y 



<* '" * ' 



o. 



o V 



'>■ 



•'<<« 



o. 






) ¥ 



CORRESPONDENCE 

BETWEEN 

MR. WEBSTER AND LORD ASHBURTON 

1. ON McLEOD'S CASE; 

2. ON THE CREOLE CASE; 

3. ON THE SUBJECT OF IMPRESSMENT. 



t 






DtfC 15 190?; 

^ or 1)3 



CASE OF THE " CAROLINE." 



Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, 

Washington, July 27 , 18^2. 

My Lord : In relation to the case of the " CaroUne," wliich we have 
'heretofore made the subject of conference, I have thought it right to place in 
your hands an extract of a letter from this Department to Mr. Fox, of the 
24th of April, 1841, and an extract from the message of the President of the 
United States to Congiess at the commencement of its present session. These 
papers you have, no doubt, already seen ; but they are, nevertheless, now 
communicated, as such communication is considered a ready mode of pre- 
senting the view which this Government entertains of the destruction of that 
vessel. 

The act of which the Government of the United States complains is not 
to be considered as justifiable or unjustifiable, as the question of the lawful- 
ness or unlawfulness of the employment in which the " Caroline" was en- 
gaged may be decided the one way or the other. That act is of itself a 
wrong, and an offence to the sovereignty and the dignity of the United States, 
bping a violation of their soil and territory — a wrong for which, to this day, 
no atonement, or even apology, has been made by her majesty's Govern- 
ment. Your lordship can not but be aware that self-respect, the conscious- 
ness of independence and national equality, and a sensitiveness to whatever 
may touch the honor of the country — a sensitiveness which this Government 
will ever feel and ever cultivate — make (his a matter of high importance, and 
I must be allowed to ask for it your lordship's grave consideration. 

I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient seixant, 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

Lord Ashburton, 4*c- J t^'^- 5 ^5'^- 



Extract of a letter from Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, dated April 24, 1841. 

The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the Government of 
the United States has not changed the opinion which it has heretofore ex- 
pressed to her majesty's Government of the character of the act of destroying 
the " Caroline." 

It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any reasonable 
application or construction of the right of self-defence, under the laws of 
nations. It is admitted that a just right of self-defence attaches always to 
nations as well as to individuals, and is equally necessary for the preserva- 
tion of both. But the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by 
the circumstances of each particular case j and when its alleged exercise 



has led to the commission of hostile acts within the territory of a power 
at peace, nothing less than a clear and absolute necessity can afford ground 
of justification. Not having up to this time been made acquainted wirh 
the views and reasons at length which have led her majesty's Government 
to think the destruction of the " Caroline" justifiable as an act of self-de- 
fence, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remonstrance of this Gov- 
ernment against the transaction, abstains for the present from any extended 
discussion of the question. But it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to 
omit to take some notice of the general grounds of justification stated by 
her majesty's Government, in their instruction to Mr. Fox. 

Her majesty's Government have instructed Mr. Fox to say that they are 
of opinion that the transaction which terminated in the destruction of the 
" Caroline" was a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defend- 
ing the British territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British 
rebels and American pirates, who, having been "permiUed" to arm and or- 
ganize themselves within the territory of the United States, had actually in- 
vaded a portion of the territory of her majesty. 

The President can not suppose that her majesty's Government, by the use 
of these terms, meant to be understood as intimating that those acts violating 
the laws of the United States, and disturbing the peace of the^Brilish territo- 
ries, were done under any degree of countenance from this Government, or 
were regarded by it with indilference, or that, under the circumstances of the 
case, they could have been prevented by the ordinary course of proceeding. 
Although he regrets that, by using the term " permitted," a possible inference 
of that kind might be raised, yet such an inference the President is willing 
to believe would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British Govern- 
ment. 

That, on a line of frontier such as separates the United States from her 
Britannic majesty's North American provinces— a line long enough to divide 
the whole of lEurope into halves — irregularites, violences, and conflicts, should 
sometimes occur, equally against the will of both Governments, is certainly 
easily to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in regard to the 
United States, without any reproach to their Government, since their institu- 
tions entirely discourage the keeping up of large standing armies in time of peace, 

and their situation happily exempts them from the necessity of maintainmg 
such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can be expected 
from eidier Government,'in these cases, is good faith, a sincere desire to pre- 
serve peace and do justice, the use of all proper means of prevention ; and that,, 
if ofil'ences can not," nevertheless, be always prevented, the ofifenders shall still 
be justly punished. In all these respects, this Government acknowledges 
no delinquency in the performance of its duties. 

Her majesty's Government are pleased, also, to speak of those American 
citizens who took part with persons in Canada engaged in an insurrection 
against the British Government as " American pirates." The undersigned 
does not admit the propriety or justice of diis designation. If citizens of the 
United States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a military expedition 
from the United States, intended to act against the British Government in 
Canada, they were clearly violating the laws of their own country, and ex- 
posing themselves to the just consequences which might be inflicted on them, 
jf taken within the British dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they were 
certainly not pirates, nor does the undersigned think that it can advance the 
purpose of fair and fiiendly discussion, or hasten the accommodation of na- 



tional difficulties, so to denominate them. Their ofTence, w])aicvcr it was, had 
no analogy to cases of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against them to 
be true, They were takmg a part in what they regarded as a civil war, and 
they were taking a part on the side of the rebels. Surely England herself 
has not regarded persons thus engaged as deserving the appellation which 
her majesty's Government bestows on these citizens of the United Slatcif. 

It is quite notorious that, for the greater part of the last two centuries, 
subjects of the British crown have been permitted to engage in foreign 
wars, both national and civil, and in the latter in every stage of their prog- 
ress ; and yet it has not been imagined that England has at any time 
allowed her subjects to turn pirates." Indeed, in our own times, not only 
have individual subjects of that crown gone abroad to engage in civil wars, 
but we have seen whole regiments openly recruited, imbodied, armed, and 
disciplined, in England, with the avowed purpose of aiding a rebellion 
against a nation with which England v/ns at peace ; although it is true that, 
subsequently, an a?.t of Parliament was passed to prevent transactions so 
nearly approaching to public war, without license from the crown. 

It may be said that there is a difference between the case of a civil war 
arising from a disputed succession, or a protracted revolt of a colony 
against the mother-country, and the case of the fresh outbreak or commence- 
ment of a rebellion. The undersigned does not deny that such a distinction 
may, for certain purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits that a Gov- 
ernment, called upon to consider its own rights, interests, and duties, v/hen 
civil wars break out in other countries, may decide on all the circumstances 
of the particular case upon its own existing stipulations, on probable results, 
on what its own security requires, and on many other considerations. It 
maybe already bound to" assist one party, or it may become bound, if it so 
chooses, to assist the other, and to meet the consequences of such assistance. 

But whether the revolt be recent or long continued, they who join those, 
concerned in it, whatever may be their offence against their own country, 
or however they may be treated, if taken witii arms in their hands in the 
territory of the Governmgnt against which the standard of revolt is raised, 
can not be denominated pirates without departing from all ordinary use of 
language in the definition of offences. A cause which has so foul an 
origin^'as piracy can not, in its progress or by its success, obtain a claim 
to any degree of respectability or tolerance among nations; and civil 
wars, therefore, are not understood to have such a commencement. 

It is well known to Mr. Fox that authorities of the highest eminence 
in England, living and dead, have maintained that the general law of 
nations does not forbid the citizens or subjects of one Government from 
taking part in the civil commotions of another. There is some reason, 
indeed, lo think that such may be the opinion of her majesty's Govern- 
ment at the present moment. 

The undersigned has made tliese remarks from tho conviction that it is 
important to regard established distinctions, and to view the acts and offences 
of individuals in the exactly proper light. But it is not to be inferred that 
there is, on the part of this Government, any purpose of extenuating in the 
slightest degree the crimes of those persons, citizens of the United Slates, who 
have joined in military expeditions against the British Government in Cari- 
ada. On the contrary the President directs the undersigned to say that it is 
his fixed resolution that all such disturbers of the national peace, and vio- 



6 

lators of the laws of their country, shall be broiight to exemplary punishiiient. 
Nor will the fact that they are instigated and led on to these excesses by Brit- 
isli subjects, refugees from the provinces, be deemed any excuse or palliation ; 
although it is well worthy of being remembered that the prime movers of 
these disturbances on the borders are subjects of the Q,ueen, who come within 
the territories of the United States, seeking to enlist the sympathies of their 
citizens, by all the motives which they are able to address to them, on ac- 
count of grievances, real or imaginary. There is no reason to believe that 
the design of any hostile movement from the United States, against Canada, 
has commenced with citizens of the United States. The true origin of sucli 
purposes and such enterprises is on. the other side of the line. But the Presi- 
dent's resolution to prevent these transgressions of tlie laws is not, on that 
account, the less strong. It is taken, not only in conformity to his duty, 
under the provisions of existing laws, but in full consonance with the estab- 
lished principles and practice of this Government, 

The Government of the United States has not from tlie first fallen into the 
doubts, elsewhere entertained, of the true extent of the duties of neutrality. 
It has held that, however it may have been in less enlightened ages, the just 
interpretation of the modern law of nations is that neutral States are bound 
to be strictly neutral; and that it is a manifest and gross impropriety for in^ 
dividuals to engage in the civil conflicts of other States, and thus to be at war 
while their Government is at peace. War and peace are high national rela- 
tions, which can properly be established or changed only by nations them- 
selves. 

The United States have thought, also, that the salutary doctrine of non- 
intervention by one nation with the affairs of others is liable to be essentially 
impaired, if, while Government refrains from interference, interference is still 
allowed to its subjects, individually or in masses. It may happen, indeed, 
that persons choose to leave their country, emigrate to other regions, and set- 
tle themselves on uncultivated lands in territories belonging to other states. 
This can not be prevented by Governments which allow the emigration of 
their subjects and citizens ; and such persons, having voluntarily abandoned 
iheir own country, have no longer claim to its protection, nor is it longer re- 
sponsible for tlieir acts. Such cases, therefore, if they occur, show no aban- 
donment of the duty of neutrality. 

The Government of the United States has not considered it as sufficient to 
confine the duties of neutrality and non-interference to the case of Govern- 
ments whose territories lie adjacent to each other. The application of the 
principle may be more necessary in such cases, but the principle itself they 
regard as being the same, if those territories be divided by half the globe. 
The rule is founded in the impropriety and danger of allowing individuals 
to make war on their own authority, or, by mingling themselves in the bel- 
ligerant operations of other nations, to run the hazard of counteracting the 
policy or embroiling the relations of their own Government. And the Uni- 
ted States have been the first among civilized nations to enforce the observ- 
Tance of this just rule of neutrality and peace, by special and adequate legal 
enactments. In the infancy of this Government, on the breaking out of the 
European wars which had their origin in the French revolution, Congress 
passed laws, with severe penalties, for preventing the citizens of the United 
States from taking part in those hostilities. 

By these laws it prescribed to the citizens of the United States what it un- 



7 

tleistood (0 be their duty as neutrals, by the law of nations, and the duty, 
also, which they owed to the interest and honor of their own country. 

At a subsequent period, when the American colonies of a Europesaa 
power took up arms against their sovereign, Congress, not diverted from 
the established system of the Government by any temporary considerations, 
not swerved from its sense of justice and of duty by any sympathies which 
it might naturally feel for one of the parties, did not hesitate, also, to pass 
acts applicable to the case of colonial insurrection and civil war. And these 
provisions of law have been continued, revised, amended, and are in full 
force at the present moment. Nor have they been a dead letter, as it is well 
known that exemplary punishments have been inflicted on those who have 
transgressed them. It is known, indeed, that heavy penalties have fallen 
on individuals (citizens of the United States) engaged in this very disturb- 
ance in Canada with which the destruction of the Caroline was connected. 
And it is in Mr. Fox's knowledge, also, that the act of Congress of March 
10, 1838, was passed for the precise purpose of more effectually restraining 
military enterprises, from the United States into the British provinces, by 
authorizing the use of the most sure and decisive preventive means. The 
undersigned may add, that it stands on the admission of very high British, 
authority, that during the recent Canadian troubles, although bodies of ad- 
venturers appeared on the border, making it necessary for the people of 
Canada to keep themselves in a stale prepared for self-defence, yet that these 
adventurers were acting by no means in accordance with the feeling of the 
great mass of the American people, or of the Government of the United 
States. 

This Government, therefore, not only holds itself above reproach in every 
thing respecting (he preservation of neutrality, the observance of the principle 
of non-intervention, and the strictest conformity in these respects to the rules 
of international law, but it doubts not that the world will do it the justice to 
acknowledge that it has set an example not unfit to be followed by othere ; 
and that by its steady legislation on this most important subject, it has done 
something to promote peace and good neighborhood among nations, and to 
advance the civilization of mankind. 

The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic Majesty's Government 
shall present the grounds, at length, on which they justify the local author- 
ities of Canada in attacking and destroying the " Caroline," they will con- 
sider that the laws of the United States are such as the undersigned has now 
represented them, and that the Government of the United States has ahyays 
manifested a sincere disposition to see those laws effectually and impartially 
administered. If there have been cases in which individuals, justly obnox- 
ous to punishment, have escaped, this is no more than happens in regard to 
other laws. 

Under these circumstances, and under those immediately connected with 
the transaction itself, it will be for her majesty's Government to show upon 
what state of facts, and what rules of national law, the destmction of the 
" Caroline" is to be defended. It will be for that Government to show a 
necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, 
and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to show, also, that the local 
authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized 
them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unrea- 
sonable or excessive, since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, 



8 

must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be 
shown that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the " Caro- 
line" was impracticable, or would have been unavailing. It must be shown 
that daylight could not be waited for ; that there could be no attempt at dis- 
crimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would not have 
have been enough to seize and detain the vessel ; but that there was a neces- 
sity present and inevitable, for attacking her in the darkness of the night, 
while moored to the shore, and while unarmed men were asleep on board, 
killing some and wounding others, and then drawing her into the current, 
above the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know w^hether there 
might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the living with the dead, 
committing her to a fate w^hich fills the imagination with horror. A necessity 
for all this, the Government of the United States can not believe to have 
existed. 

All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they must lead to bloody 
and exasperated Avar. And when an individual comes into the United States 
from Canada, and to the veiy place on which this drama was performed, and 
there chooses to make public and vainglorious boast of the part he acted in 
it, it is hardly w^onderful that great excitement should be created, and some 
degree of commotion arise. 

This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity of the world ; its object 
is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no aggrandizement by foreign conquest, 
because it knows that no foreign acquisitions could augment its power and 
importance so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural 
grownh, under the propitious circumstances of its situation. But it can not 
admit that its Government has not both the will and the power to preserve 
its own neutrality, and to enforce the observances of its own laws upon its 
own citizens. It is jealous of its rights, and among others, and most especi- 
ally, of the right of the absolute immunity of its territory against aggression 
from abroad ;"and these rights it is the duty and determination of this Gov- 
emment fully and at all times to maintain, while it will at the same time 
as scrupulously refrain from infringing on the rights of others. 

The President instructs the undersigned to say, in conclusion, that he confi- 
dently trusts that this, and all other questions of difference between the two 
Governments, will be treated by both in the full exercise of such a spirit of 
candor, justice, and mutual respect, as shall give assurance of the long-con- 
tinuance of peace betw een the two countries. 

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure Mr. Fox of 

his hiffh consideration. 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

Henry S. Fox, Esq., 

Envoy Extraordinary and 

Minister Plenipotentiaj)-y of Great Britain^ S^c. 



Extract from the Message of the President to Congress at the commence- 
ment of the second session of the 21th Congress. 

I regret that it is not in my powder to make known to you an equally 
satisfactory conclusion in the case of the " Caroline" steamer, with the cir- 



9 

cumstances connected with the destruction of which, in December, 1837, 
by an armed force fitted out in the province of Upper Canada, you are al- 
ready made acquainted. No such atonement as was due for the pubhc 
wrong done to the United States by this invasion of her territory, so 
wholly irreconcilable with her rights as an independent Power, has yet 
been made. In the view taken by this Government, the inquiry whether 
the vessel was in the employment of those who were prosecuting an un- 
authorized war against that province, or was engaged by the owner in 
the business of transporting passengers to and from Navy island, in 
hopes of private gain, which was most probably the case, in no degree 
alters the real question at issue between the two Governments. This Gov- 
ernment can never concede to any foreign Government the power, except 
in a case of the most urgent and extreme necessity, of invading its territory, 
either to arrest the persons or destroy the property of those who may have 
violated the municipal laws of such foreign Government, or have disre- 
garded their obligations arising under the law of nations. The territory 
of the United States must be regarded as sacredly secure against all such 
invasions, until they shall voluntarily acknowledge inability to acquit them- 
selves of their duties to others ; and, in announcing this sentiment, I do but 
afhrm a principle which no nation on earth would be more ready to vindi- 
cate, at all hazards, tlian the people and Government of Great Britain. If, 
upon a full investigation of all the facts, it shall appear that the owner of the 
" Caroline" was governed by a hostile intent, or had made common cause 
with those who were in the occupancy of Navy island, then, so far as he is 
concerned, there can be no claim to indemnity for the destruction of his 
boat, which this Government would feel itself bound to prosecute, since he 
would have acted not only in derogation of the rights of Great Britain, 
but in clear violation of the laws of the United States. But that is 
a question which, however settled, in no manner involves the higher con- 
sideration of (he violation of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. To 
recognise it as an admissible practice, that each Government, in its turn, 
upon any sudden and unauthorized outbreak, which, on a frontier the ex- 
tent of which renders it impossible for either to have an efficient force on 
every mile of it, and which outbreak, therefore, neither may be able to sup- 
press in a day, may take vengeance into its own hands, and without even a 
remonstrance, and in the absence of any pressing or overruling necessity, 
may invade the territory of the other, would inevitably lead to results 
equally to be deplored by both. When border collisions come to re- 
ceive the sanction or to be made on the authority of either Government, 
general war must be the inevitable result. While it is the ardent desire of 
the United States to cultivate the relations of peace with all nations, and to 
fulfil all the duties of good neighborhood towards those who possess terri- 
tories adjoining their own, that very desire would lead them to deny the 
right of any foreign Power to invade their boundary with an armed force. 
The correspondence between the two Governments on this subject will, at 
a future day of your session, be submitted to your consideration; and, in 
the meantime, I can not but indulge the hope that the British Government 
will see the propriety of renouncing, as a rule of future action, the precedent 
which has been set in the affair at Schlosser. 



10 

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 28, 1842. 

Sir : In the course of our conferences on the several subjects of diflference 
which it was the object of my mission to endeavor to settle, the unfortunate 
case of the Caroline, with its attendant consequences, could not escape our 
attention ; for although it is not of a description to be susceptible of any set- 
tlement by a convention or treaty, yet, being connected with the highest 
considerations of national honor and dignity, it has given rise, at times, to 
deep excitements, so as more than once to endanger the maintenance of 
peace. 

The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 27th instant, re- 
minds me that however disposed your Government might be to be satisfied 
with the explanations which it has been my duty to otTer, the natural anxiety 
of the public mind requires that these explanations should be more durably 
recorded in our Qorrespondence,and you send me a copy of your note to Mr. 
Fox, her Britannic majesty's minister here, and an extract from the speech of 
the President of the United States to Congress at the opening of the present 
session, as a ready mode of presenting the view entertained on this subject 
by the Government of (he United States. 

It is so far satisfactory to perceive that we are perfectly agreed as to the 
general principles of international law applicable to this unfortunate case. 
Respect for the inviolable character of the territory of independent nations, 
is the most essential foundation of civilization. It is useless to strengthen a 
principle so generally acknowledged by any appeal to authorities on inter- 
national law, and you may be assured, sir, that her majesty's Government 
set the highest possible value on this principle, and are sensible of their duty 
to support it by their conduct and example, for the maintenance of peace 
and order in the world. If a sense of moral responsibility were not a suffi- 
cient security for their observance of this duty toward all nations, it will be 
readily believed that the most common dictates of interest and policy would 
lead to it in the case of a long conterminous boundary of some thousand 
miles, with a country of such great and growing power as the United States 
of America, inhabited by a kindred race, gifted with all its activity, and all 
its susceptibility on points of national honor. 

Every consideration, therefore, leads us to set, as highly as your Govern- 
ment can possibly do, this paramount obligation of reciprocal respect for the 
independent territory of each. But however strong this duty may be, it is 
admitted by all writers, by all jurists, by the occasional practice of all nations, 
hot excepting your own, that a strong overpowering necessity may arise, 
when this great principle may and must be si^spended. It must be so for 
the shortest possible period, during the continuance of an admitted overruling 
necessity, and strictly confined within the narrowest limits imposed by that 
necessity. Self-defence is the firet law of our nature, and it must be recog- 
nised by every code which professes to regulate the condition and relations 
of man. Upon this modification, if I may so call it, of the great general 
principle, we seem also (o be agreed; and on this part of the subject I have 
done little more that repeat the sentiments, though in less forcible language, 
admitted and maintained by you in the letter to which you refer me. 

Agreeing, therefore, on the general principle, and on the possible excep- 
tion to which it is liable, the only question between us is whether this occur- 
rence came within the limits fairly to be assigned to such exception — wheth- 



11 

er, to use your words, tlieie was " that necessity of self-defence, instant, over- 
whelming, leaving no choice of means," which preceded the destruction of 
the Caroline, while moored to the shore of the United States. Give me 
leave to say, sir, with all possible admiration of your very ingenious discus- 
sion of the general principles which are supposed to govern the right and 
practice of interference by the people of one country in the wars and quarrels 
of others, that this part of your argument is little applicable to our immedi- 
ate case. If Great Britain, America, or any other country suffer their people 
to fit out expeditions to take part in distant quarrels, such conduct may, ac- 
cording to the circumstances of each case, be justly matter of complaint; 
and perhaps these transactions have generally been in late times too much 
overlooked or connived at. But (he case we are considering is of a wholly 
different description, and may be best determined by answering the following 
question. Supposing a man standing on ground where you have no legal 
right to follow him, has a weapon long enough to reach you, and is striking 
you down and endangering your life, how long are you bound to wait for the 
assistance of the authority having the legal power to relieve you? or, to bring 
the facts more immediately home to the case, if cannon are moving and set- 
ting up in a battery which can reach you and are actually destroying life 
and property by their fire, if you have remonstrated for some time without 
efiect, and see no prospect of relief, when begins your right to defend your- 
self, should you have no other means of doing so than by seizing your 
assailant on the verge of a neutral territory ? 

I am unwilling to recal to your recollection the particulars of tliis case, but 
I am obliged very shortly to do so, to show what was at the time the extent 
of the existing justification, for upon this entirely depends the question 
whether a gross insult has or has not been offered to the Government and 
people of the United States. 

After some tumultuous proceedings in Upper Canada, which were of short 
duration, and were suppressed by the militia of the country, the persons 
criminally concerned in them toojc refuge in the neighboring State of New 
York, and with a very large addition to their numbers openly collected, in- 
vaded the Canadian territory, taking possession of Navy island. 

This invasion took place the 16th of December, 1837; a gradual acces- 
sion of numbers and of military ammunition continued openly, and though 
under die sanction of no public authority, at least with no public hindrance, 
imtil the 29th of the same month, when several hun.'red men were collect- 
ed, and twelve pieces of ordnance, which could only have been procured 
from some public store or arsenal, were actually mounted on Navy island, 
and were used to fire within easy range upon the unoffending inhabitants of 
the opposite shore. Remonstrances, wholly ineffectual, were made ; so in- 
effectual, indeed, that a militia regiment, stationed on the neighboring 
American island, looked on without any attempt at interference, while shots 
were fired from the American island itself. This important fact stands on 
the best American authority, being stated in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, of the 
6t]r of February, 1838, of Mr. Beiiton, attorney of the United States, the 
gentleman sent by your Government to inquire into the facts of the case, 
who adds, very properly, that he makes the statement " with deep regret and 
mortification." 

This force, formed of all the reckless and mischievous people of the bor- 
der, formidable from their numbers and from their armament, had in their 
pay, and as part of their establishment, this steamboat Caroline, the iinpor- 



12 

tant means and instrument by which numbers and arms were hourly in- 
creasing. I might safely put it to any candid man acquainted with the ex- 
isting state of things, to say whether the military commander in Canada had 
the remotest reason, on the 29th of December, to expect to be relieved from 
this state of suffering by the protective intervention of any American author- 
ity. How long could a Government having the paramount duty of protect- 
ing its own people, be reasonably expected to wait for what they had then no 
reason to expect ? What would have been the conduct of American officers ? 
what has been their conduct under circumstances much less aggravated ? I 
would appeal to you, sir, to say whether the facts which you say would 
alone justify this act, viz., "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelm- 
ing, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," were not 
applicable to this case in as high a degree as they ever were to any case of a 
similar description in the history of nations. 

Nearly five years are now past since this occurrence; there has been time 
for the public to deliberate upon it calmly, and I believe I may take it to be 
the opinion of candid and honorable men, that the British officers who exe- 
cuted this transaction, and their Government who approved it, intended no 
slight or disrespect to the sovereign authority of the United States. That 
they intended no such disrespect I can most solemnly affirm, and I trust it 
will be admitted that no inference to the contrary can fairly be drawn, even 
by the most susceptible on points of national honor. 

Notwithstanding my wish that the explanation I had to make might not 
revive jn any degree any feelings of irritation, I do not see how I could 
treat this subject without this short recital of facts, because the proof that 
no disrespect was intended is mainly to be looked for in tlie extent of the 
justification. 

There remains only a point or two. which I should wish to notice, to re- 
move in some degree the impression which your rather highly colored 
description of this transaction is calculated to make. The mode of telling 
a story often tends to distort facts, and in this case more than in any other, 
it is important to arrive at plain unvarnished truth. 

It appears from every account, that the expedition was sent to capture the 
Caroline when she was expected to be found on the British ground of Navy 
Island, and that it was only owing to the orders of the rebel leader being 
disobeyed, that she was not so found. When the British officer came round 
the point of the island in the night, he first discovered that the vessel w^as 
moored to the other shore. He was not by this deterred from making the 
capttire, and his conduct was approved. But you will perceive that there 
was here, most decidedly, the case of justification mentioned in your note, 
that there should be " no moment left for deliberation." I mention this 
circumstance to show, also, that the expedition was not planned with a 
premeditated purpose of attacking the enemy within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, but that the necessity of so doing arose from altered circum- 
stances at the moment of execution. 

I have only further to notice the highly colored picture drawn in your 
note, of the facts attending the execution of this service. Some importance 
is attached to the attack having been made in the night, and the vessel 
having been set on fire and floated down the falls of the river ; and it is in- 
sinuated rather than asserted, that there was carelessness as to the lives of 
the persons on board. The account given by the distinguished officer who 
commanded the expedition distinctly refutes, or satisfactorily explains these 



13 

assertions. The time of night was purposely selected as most likely to in- 
sure the execution, with the least loss of life, and it is expressly stated that 
the strength of the current not permitting the vessel to be carried off, and 
it being necessary to destroy her by fire, she was drawn into the stream 
for the express purpose of preventing injury to persons or proj^erty of the 
inhabitants at Schlosser. 

I would willingly have abstained from a return to the facts of this trans- 
action, my duty being to offer those explanations and assurances which 
may lead to satisfy the public mind, and to the cessation of all angry feeling, 
but it appeared to me that some explanation of parts of the case, apparently 
misunderstood, migh be of service for this purpose. 

Although it is believed that a candid and impartial consideration of the 
whole history of this unfortunate event will lead to the conclusion, that 
there were grounds of justification as strong as were ever presented in such 
cases, and above all, that no slight of the authority of the United State? 
was ever intended, yet, it must be admitted, that there was in the hurried 
execution of this necessary service a violation of territory, and I am in- 
structed to assure you that her majesty's Government consider this as r 
most serious fact, and that far from thinking that an event of this kind 
should be lightly risked, they would unfeignedly deprecate its recurrence 
Looking back to what passed at this distance of time, what is, perhaps 
most to be regretted, is, that some explanation and apology for this occur- 
rence was not immediately made ; this, with a frank explanation of the ne- 
cessity of the case might, and probably would have prevented much of the 
exasperation, and of the subsequent complaints and recriminations to 
which it gave rise. 

TJiere are possible cases in the relations of nations, as of individuals, 
where necessity, which controls all other laws, may be pleaded, but it i; 
neither easy, nor safe to attempt to define the rights or limits properly as- 
signable to such a plea. This must always be a subject of much delicacy, 
and should be considered by friendly nations with great candor and for- 
bearance. The intentions of the parties must mainly be looked to, and 
can it for a moment be supposed, that Great Britain would intentionally 
and wantonly provoke a great and powerful neighbor ? 

Her majesty's Government earnestly desire that a reciprocal respect for the 
independent jurisdiction and authority of neighboring States may be consid- 
ered among the first duties of all Governments; and I have to repeat the as 
surance of regret they feel that the event of which I am treating should have 
disturbed the harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with the Ameri- 
can people and Government. 

Connected with these transactions, there have also been circumstances, of 
which I believe it is generally admitted that Great Britain has also had just 
ground to complain. Individuals have been made personally liable for acts 
done under the avowed authority of their Government ; and there are now 
many brave men exposed to personal consecpiences for no other cause than 
having served their country. That this is contrary to every prhiciple of in- 
ternational law it is useless for me to insist. Indeed, it has been admitted by 
every authority of your Government; but, owing to a conflict of laws, difii- 
culties have intervened, much to the regret of those authorities, in giving 
practical effect to these principles; and for these difficulties some remedy has 
"been by all desired. It is no business of mine to enter upon the considera- 
tion of them, nor have I sufficient information for the purpose ; but I trust 



14 

you will excuse my addressing to you the inquiry, whether the Government 
of the United States is now in a condition to secure, in eifecl and in practice, 
the principle which has never been denied in argument, that individuals, act- 
ing under legitimate authority, are not personally responsible for executing 
the orders of their Government. That the power, when it exists, will be used 
on every fit occasion I am well assured ; and I am bound to admit that, look- 
ing through the voluminous correspondence concerning these transactions, 
there appears no indisposition with any of the authorities of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, under its several administrations, to do justice in this respect in as 
far as their means and powers would allow. 

I trust, sir, I may now be permitted to hope that all feelings of resentment 
and ill will, resulting from these truly unfortunate events, may be buried in 
oblivion, and that they may be succeeded by those of harmony and friend- 
ship, which it is certamly the interest, and, I also believe, the inclination of 
all to promote. • 

I beg, sir, you will be assured of my high and unfeigned consideration. 

ASHBURTON. 

Hon. Daniel Webster. 

4'c., 6fc., ^'c. 



Mr. Webster to Lord Aslibwton. 

Department of State, 
Washi?igfo?i, August 6, 1842. 

Your lordship's note of the 2Sth of July, in answer to mine of the 27th, 
respecting the case of the "Caroline," has been received and laid before the 
President. 

The President sees with pleasure that your lordship fully admits those 
great principles of public law, applicable to cases of this kind, which this 
Government has expressed ; and that on your part, as on ours, respect for 
the inviolable character of the territory of independent States, is the most 
essential foundation of civilization. And while it is admitted, on both 
sides, that there are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified to find that your 
lordship admits that such exceptions must come within the limitations 
stated and the terms used in a former communication from this Depart- 
ment to the British Plenipotentiary here. Undoubtedly it is just, that while 
it is admitted that exceptions growing out of the great law of self-defence 
do exist, those exceptions should be confined to cases in which the "ne- 
cessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice 
of means, and no moment for deUberation." 

Understanding these principles alike, the difterence between the two Gov- 
ernments is only whether the facts in the case of the " Caroline" make out 
a case of such necessity for the purpose of self-defence. Seeing that the 
transaction is not recent, having happened in the time of one of his prede- 
cessors ; seeing that your lordship, in the name of your Government, solemn- 
ly declares that no slight or disrespect was intended to the sovereign au- 
thority of the United States; seeing that it is acknowledged that whether 
justifiable or not, there was yet a violation of the territor^r of the United 
States, and that you are instructed to say that your Government consider 
that as a most serious occurrence ; seeing, finally, that it is now admitted 



15 

that an explanation and apology for this violation was due at the time, the 
President is content to receive these acknowledgments and assurances in 
the conciliatory spirit which marks your lordship's letter, and will make 
this subject, as a complaint of violation of territory, the topic of no further 
discussion between the two Governments. 

As to that part of your lordship's note which relates toother occurrences 
springing out of the case of the "Caroline," with which occurrences the 
name of Alexander McLeod has become connected, I have to say that the 
Government of the United States entirely adheres to the sentiments and 
opinions expressed in the communications from this Department to Mr. 
Fox. This Government has admitted, that for an act committed by the 
command of his sovereign, jure belli, an individual can not be responsible, 
in the ordinary courts of another State. It would regard it as a high in- 
dignity if a citizen of its own, acting under its authority, and by its special 
command, in such cases, were hejd to answer in a municipal tribunal, and 
to undergo punishment, as if the behest of his Government were no de- 
fence or protection to him. 

But your lordship is aware that in regular constitutional Governments, 
persons arrested on charges of high crimes can only be discharged by some 
judicial proceeding. It is so in England ; it is so in the colonies and prov- 
inces of England. The forms of'judicial proceeding differ, in different 
countries, being more rapid in some and more dilatory in others ; and it 
may be added, generally more dilatory, or at least more cautious, in cases 
affecting life, in Governments of a strictly limited than in those of a more 
unlimited character. It was a subject of regret that the release of McLeod 
was so long delayed. A State court, and that not of the highest jurisdiction, 
decided that, on summary application, embarrassed, as it would appear, by tech- 
nical difficulties, he could not be released by that court. His discharge, shortly 
afterward, by a jury, to whom he preferred to submit his case, rendered unne- 
cessary the further prosecution of the legal question. It is for the Congress of 
the United States, whose attention has been called to the subject, to say what 
further provision ought to be made to expedite proceedings in such cases; and, 
in answer to your lordship's question toward the close of your note, I have to 
say that the Government of the United States holds itself, not only fully dis- 
posed, but fully competent, to carry into practice every principle which it 
avows or acknowledges, and to fulfil every duty and obligation which it owes 
to foreign Governments, their citizens, or subjects. 

I have the honor to be, my lord, with great consideration, your obedient 
servant, 

DANIEL WEBSTER 

Lord ASHBURTON', 



16 



CASE OF THE " CREOLE." 



Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 1, 1842. 

My Lord : The President has learned with much regret that you are not 
empowered by your Government to enter into a formal stipulation for the 
better security of vessels of the United States, when meeting with disasters 
in passing between the United States and the Bahama islands, and driven, 
by such disasters, into British ports. This is a subject which is deemed to 
be of great importance, and which can not, on the present occasion, be over- 
looked. 

Your lordship is aware that several cases have occurred within the last 
few years which have caused much complaint. In some of these cases 
compensation has been made by the English Government for the interfer- 
ence of the local authorities with American vessels having slaves on board^ 
fey which interference these slaves w^ere set free. In other cases, such com- 
pensation has been refused. It appears to the President to be for the interest 
of both countiies that the recurrence of similar cases in future should be pre- 
vented as far as possible. 

Your lordship has been acquainted with the case of the " Creole," a vessel 
canied into the port of Nassau last winter by persons who had risen upon the 
lawful authority of the vessel, and, in the accomplishment of their purpose, 
had committed murder on a person on board. 

The opinions which that occurrence gave occasion for this Government to 
express, in regard to the rights and duties of friendly and civilized maritime 
states, placed by Providence near to each other, were well considered, and 
are entertained with entire confidence. The facts in the particular case of 
the " Creole " are controverted : positive and officious interference by the 
colonial authorities to set the slaves free being alleged on one side and denied 
on the other. 

It is not my present purpose to discuss this difference of opinion as to the 
evidence in the case, as it at present exists, because the rights of individuals 
having rendered necessary a more thorough and a judicial investigation of 
facts and circumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is under- 
stood to be now in progress, and its result, when known, will render me more 
able than at this moment to present to the British Government a full and 
accurate view of the whole case. But it is my purpose, and my duty, to 
invite your lordship's attention to the general subject, and your serious consid- 
eration of some practical means of giving security to the coasting trade of the 
United States against unlawful annoyance and interruption along this part of 
their shore. The Bahama islands approach the coast of Florida within a few 
leagues, and, with the coast, form a long and narrow channel, filled with 
innumerable small islands and banks of sand, and the navigation difficult and 



17 

danj^erous, not only on these accounts, but from the violence of the winds and 
the variable nature of tlie currents. Accidents are of course frequent, and 
necessity often compels vessels of the United States, in attempting to double 
Cape Florida, to seek shelter in the porLs of these islands. Along tiiis passage 
the Atlantic States hold intercourse with the States ou the Gidf and \}\c Mis- 
sissippi, and through it the products of the valley of that river (a region of 
vast extent and boundless fertility) find a main outlet to the sea, in their desti- 
nation to the markets of the world. 

No particular ground of complaint exists as to the treatment which Amer- 
ican vessels usually receive in these potts, unless they happen to have slaves 
on board ; but, in cases of that kind, complaints iiave l)een made, as already 
stated, of officious interference of the colonial authorities with the vessel, for 
the purpose of changing the condition in w^hich these persons are, by the 
laws of their own country, and of setting- them free. 

In the southern States of this Union slavery exists by the laws of the States 
and under the guarantee of the Cotistitution of the United States ; and it 
lias existed in them from a period long antecedent to the time when they 
ceased to i)e British colonies. In this state of things, it will happen that 
slaves will be often on board coasting vessels, as hands, as servants attending 
the families of their owners, or for the purpose of being carried from port to 
port. For the security of the rights of their citizens, when vessels, having 
persons of this description on board, are driven by stress of weather, or car- 
ried by unlawful force, into British ports, the United States propose the in- 
troduction of no new principle nito the law of nations. They require only 
a faithful and exact observance of the injunctions of that code, as understood 
and practised in modern times. 

Your lordship observes that I have spoken only of American vessels driven 
into British ports by the disasters of the seas, or carried in by unlawful force. 
I confine my remarks to these cases, because they are the common cases, and 
oecause they are the cases which the law of nations most emphatically ex- 
empts from interference. The maritime law is full of instances of the ap- 
plication of that great and practical ride, which declares that that which is 
tlie clear result of necessity ought to draw after it no penalty and no hazard. 
If a ship be driven, by stress of weather, into a prohibited port, or into an 
open port, with prohibited articles on board, in neither case is any forfeiture 
incurred. And what may be considered a still stronger case, it has been de- 
cided by eminent English authority, and that decision has received general 
approbation, that if a vessel be driven, by necessity, into a port strictly block- 
aded, this necessity is good defence, and exempts her from penalty. 

A vessel on the high seas, beyond the distance of a marine league from 
the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to which she be- 
longs, and subjected, exclusively, to the jurisdiction of that nation. If 
against the will of her master, or owner, she be driven or carried nearer to 
the land, or even into port, those who have, or who ought to have, control over 
her, struggling all the while to keep her upon the high seas, and so within 
the exclusive jurisdiction of her own Government, what reason or justice is 
there in creating a distinction between her rights and immunities, in a posi- 
tion, thus the result of absolute necessity, and the same rights and immuni- 
ties before superior power had forced her out of her voluntary course? 

But, my lord, the rule of law, and the comity and practice of nations, go 
much further than the<^e cases of necessity, and allow even to a merchant 
ve&Hil, coming into any open port of another country voluntarily, for llie 



18 

purposes of lawful trade, to bring with her, and keep over her, to a very con- 
siderable extent, the jurisdiction and authority of the laws of her own coun- 
try, excluding- to this extent, by consequence, the jurisdiction of the local 
law. A ship, say the publicists, though at anchor in a foreign harbor, pre- 
serves its jurisdiction and its Jaws. It is natural to consider the vessels of a 
nation as parts of its territory, though at sea, as the state retains its jurisdic- 
tion over them ; and, according to the commonly-received custom, this juris- 
diction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a for- 
eign dominion. 

This is the doctrine of the law of nations, clearly laid down by writers of 
received authority, and entirely conformable, as it is supposed, with the prac- 
tices of modern nations. 

If a murder be committed on board of an American vessel, by one of the 
crew upon another or upon a passenger, or by a passenger on one of the crew 
or another passenger, while such vessel is lying in a port within the jurisdic- 
tion of a foreign state or sovereignty, the ojjence is cognizable and punishable 
by the proper court of the United States, in the same manner as if such of- 
fence had been committed on board the vessel on the high seas. The law of 
England is supposed to be the same. 

It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel belonging to it, 
while lying in the port of another, is not necessarily wholly exclusive. We do 
not so consider or so assert it. For any unlawful acts done by her while thus 
lying in port, and for all contracts entered into while there, by her master or 
owners, she and they must doubtless be answerable to the laws of the place. 
Nor, if her master or crew, while on board in such port, break the peace of 
the community by the commission of crimes, can exemption be claimed for 
them. But, neverthele&«, the law of nations, as I have stated it, and the 
italutes of Governments founded on that law, as I have referred to them, 
show that enlightened nations, in modern times, do clearly hold that the 
jurisdiction and laws of a nation accompany her ships, not only over the high 
seas, but into ports and harbors, or wheresoever else they may be water-borne, 
for the general purpose of governing and regulating the rights, duties, and 
obligations of those on board thereof, and that, to the extent of the exercise 
of this jurisdiction, they are considered as parts of the territory of the nation 
herself. 

If a vessel be driven by weather into the ports of another nation, it would 
hardly be alleged by any one that, by the mere force of such arrival within 
the waters of the state, the law of that state would so attach to the vessel as 
to affect existing rights of property between persons on board, whether arising 
from contractor otherwise. The local law would not operate to make the 
goods of one man to become the goods of another man. Nor ought it to affect 
their personal obligations, or existing relations between themselves ; nor was 
it ever supposed to have such effect, until the delicate and exciting question 
which has caused these interferences in the British islands arose. The local 
law in these cases dissolves no obligations or relations lawfully entered into or 
lawfully existing according to the laws of the ship's country. If it did, inter- 
course of civilized men between nation and nation must cease. Marriages 
are frequently celebrated in one countrj" in a manner not lawful or valid in 
another ; but did anybody ever doubt that marriages are valid all over the 
civilized world, if valid in the country in which they took place? Did any 
one ever imcigine that local law acted upon such marriages Xo annihilate 



19 

their obligation, if the party should visit a country in which marriages must 
be celebrated in another form ? 

It may be said that, in such instances, personal relations are foundi^d incon^^ 
tract, and therefore to be respected ; but that the relation of master and slave 
is not founded in contract, and therefore is to be respected only by the law of 
the place which recognises it. Whoever so reasons encounters the authority 
of the whole body of pul)lic law from Grotius down; because there are nu- 
merous instances in which the law itself presumes or implies contracts ; and 
prominent among these instances is the very relation which we are now consid- 
ering and which relation is holden by law to draw after it mutuality of obliga- 
tion. 

Is not the relation between a father and his minor children acknowledged, 
when they go abroad? And on what contract is this founded, but a contract 
raised by general principles of law, from the relation of the parties? 

Your lordship will please to bear in mind that the proposition which I am 
endeavoring to support is, that by the comity of the law of nations, and the 
practice of modern times, merchant vessels entering open ports of other na- 
tions, for the purpose of trade, are presumed to be allowed to bring with 
them, and to retain, for their protection and government, the jurisdiction and 
laws of their own country. All tlris, I repeat, is presumed to be allowed ; 
because the ports are open, because trade is invited, and because, under 
these circumstances, such permission or allowance is according to general 
usage. It is not denied that all tliis may be refused ; and this suggests a 
distin(;tion, the diacegard of which may perhaps account for most of the dif- 
ficulties arising in cases of this sort ; that is to say, the distinction between 
what a state may do, if it pleases, and what it is presumed to do, or not to 
do, in the absence of any positive declaration of its will. A state might de» 
clare that all foreign marriages should be regarded as null and void within 
its territory ; that a foreign father, arriving with an infont son, should no 
longer have authority or control over him ; that, on the ai rival of a foreign 
vessel in its ports, all shipping articles and all indentures of apprenticeship 
between her crew and her owners or masters should cease to be binding. 
These, and many other things equally irrational and absurd, a sovereign state 
has doubtless the power to do ; but they are not to be presimied. It is not 
to be taken for granted, ab ante, that it is the will of the sovereign state thus 
to withdraw itself from the circle of civilized nations. It will be time enough 
to believe this to be its intention, when it formally announces that intention 
by appropriate enactments, edicts, or other declarations. 

In regard to slavery within the British territories, there is a well-knowri 
and clear promulgation of the will of the sovereign authority ; that is to say, 
there is a well-known rule of her law. As to England herself, that law has 
long existed ; and recent acts of Parliament establish the same law for the 
colonies. The usual mode of stating the rule of English law is, that no 
sooner does a slave reach the shore of England than he is free. This is 
true ; but it means no more than that when a slave comes within the exclu- 
sive jurisdiction of England he ceases to be a slave, because the law of 
England positively and notoriously prohiliits and forbids the existence of 
such a relation between man and man. But it does not mean that English 
authorities, with this rule of English law in their hands, may enter where 
the jurisdictioii of another nation is aclcnowledged to exist, and there destroy 
lights', obligations, and interests, lawfully existing under the authority of such 
other nation. No such construction, and no such effect, can be rightfully 
given to the British law. It is true that it is competent to the R'Jt^qlT r»ir 



20 

fiament, by expreas statute provision, to declare (hat no foreign jurisdiction 
of any kind should exist in or over a vessel after its airival voluntarily in her 
ports. And so she might close all her ports to the ships of all nations. A 
state mav also declare, in the absence of treaty stipulations, that foreigners 
shall not sue in her courts, nor travel in her territories, nor carry away funds 
or goods received for debts. We need not inquire what would be the con- 
dition of a country that should establish such laws, nor in what relation they 
would leave her toward the states of the civilized Avorld. Her power to 
make such laws is unquestionable ; but, in the absence of direct and positive 
enactments to that effect, the presumption is that the opposites of these 
things exist. While her ports are open to foreign trade, it is to be presumed 
that she expects foreign ships to enter them, bringing with them the jurisdic- 
tion of their own Government, and the protection of its laws, to the same 
extent that her ships and the ships of other commercial states carry with 
them the jurisdiction of their respective Governments into the open ports of 
the world ; just as it is presumed, while the contrary is not avowed, that. 
irtrangers may travel in a civilized country in a time of peace, sue in its 
courts, and bring away their property. 

A merchant vessel enters the port of a friendly state, and enjoys while 
ihere the protection of her own laws, and is under the jurisdiction of her own 
Government, not in derogation of the sovereignty of the place, but by the 
presumed allowance or permission of that sovereignty. This* permission or 
allowance is founded on the comity of nations, like the other cases which 
have been mentioned ; and this comity is part, and a most important and 
valuable part, of the law of nations, to which all nations are presmned to 
assent until they make their dissent known. In the silence of any positive 
rule, affirming or denying or restraining the operation of foreign laws, their 
tacit adoption is presumed, to the usual extent. It is upon this ground that 
the courts of law expound contracts according to the law of the plijce in 
which they are made; and instances almost innumerable exist, in which, by 
the general practice of civilized countries, the laws of one will be recognised 
and often executed in another. This is the comity of nations ; and it is upon 
this, as its solid basis, that the intercourse of civilized states is maintained. 

But while that which has now been said is understood to be the voluntary 
and adopted law of nations, in cases of the voluntary entry of merchant ves- 
sels into the ports of other countries, it is nevertheless true, that vessels in 
3uch ports, only through an overruling necessity, may place their claim for 
exemption from interference on still higher principles; that is to say, princi- 
ples held in more sacred regard by the comity, the courtesy, or indeed the 
(Common sense of justice of all civiHzed states. 

Even in regard to cases of necessity, however, there are things of an un- 
friendly and offensive character, which yet it may not be easy to say that a 
nation might not do. For example, a nation might declare her will to be, 
and make it the law of her dominions, that foreign vessels, cast away on her 
shores, should be lost to their owners, and subject to the ancient law of 
wreck. Or a neutral state, while shutting her ports to the anned vessels of bd- 
ligerants, as she has a right to do, might resolve on seizing and confiscating 
vessels of that description, which should be driven to take shelter in her har- 
bors by the violence of the storms of the ocean. But laws of this character, 
however within the absolute competence of Governments, could only be pass- 
ed, if passed at all, under willingness to meet the last responsibility to whieh. 
laations are subjected^ 



21 

The pregmnption is stronger, llierefore, in regard to vessels driven into 
foreign ports by necessity, and seeking only temporary refuge, than in regard 
to those which enter them voluntarily, and for purposes of trade, that the^- 
will not be interfered with; and that, unless they commit, while in port, 
some act against the laws of the place, they will be permitted to receive sup- 
plies to repair damages, and to depart unmolested. 

If, therefore, vessels of the United States, pursuing lawful voyages, froth 
port to port, along their own shore, are driven by stress of weather, or carried 
by unlawful force, into English ports, the Government of the United Slates 
can not consent that the local authorities in those ports shall take advantage 
of such misfortunes, and enter them, for the purpose of interfering with the con- 
dition of persons or things on board, as established by their own laws, it 
slaves, the property of citizens of the United States, escape into the British 
territories, it is not expected that they will be restored. In that case, the ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction of England will have become exclrsive over them, and 
must decide their condition. But slaves on board of American vessels, lying 
in British waters, are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of England; or 
under the exclusive operation of English law; and this founds the broad dis- 
tinction between the cases. If persons, guilty of crimes in the United States^ 
seek an asylum in the British dominions, they will not be demanded, until 
provision for such cases be made by treaty : because the giving-up of crimi- 
nals, fugitive from justice, is agreed and understood to be a matter in which 
every nation regulates its conduct according to its own discretion. It is no 
breach of comity to refuse such surrender. 

On the other hand, vessels of the United States, driven by necessity into 
British ports, and staying there no longer than such necessity exists, violating 
no law, nor having intent to violate any law, will claim, and there will be 
claimed for them, protection and security, freedom from molestation, and from 
all interference with the character or condition of persons or things on board. 
In the opinion of the Governmentof the United States, such vessels, so driven 
find so detained by necessity in a friendly port, ought to be regarded as still 
pursuing their original voyage, and turned out of their direct course only by 
disaster, or by wrongful violence ; that they ought to receive all assistance 
necessary to enable them to resume that direct course; and that interference 
and molestation by the local authorities, where the whole voyage is lawfulj 
both in act and intent, is ground for just and grave complaint 

Your lordship's discernment and large experience in affairs can not fail to 
suggest to you how important it is to merchants and navigators engaged in 
the coasting trade of a country so large in extent a? the United States, that 
they should feel secure against all but the ordinary causes of maritime loss. 
The possessions of the two Governments closely approach each other. This 
proximity which ought to make us friends and good neighbors, may, with- 
out proper care and regulation, itself prove a ceaseless cause of vexationj 
irritation, and distjuiet. 

If your lordship has no authority to enter into a stipulation by treaty for 
the prevention of such occurrences hereafter as have already happened, oc- 
currences so likely to disturb that peace between the two countries which it 
is the object of your lordship's mission to establish and confirm, you may 
still be so far acquainted with the sentiments of your Government as to be 
able to engage that instructions shall be ijiven to the local authorities in the 
islands, which shall lead them to regulate their conduct in conformity with 
the rights of citizens of the United States, and the just expectations of their 



09 

Government, and in such manner as shall, in future, take away all reasonable 
ground of complaint. It would be with the most profound regret that the 
President should see that, while it is now hoped so many other subjects of 
difference may be harmoniously adjusted, nothing should be done in regard 
to this dangerous source of future collisions. 

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your lordship the assurances of 
my distinguished consideration. 

DANIEL WEBSTER- 

Lord ASHBURTON, 



Lord Ashburtofi to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 6, 1S42, 

Sir: You may be well assured that I am duly sensible of the great im- 
portance of the subject to which you call my aUeution in the note which 
you did me the honor of addressing me the 1st instant, in which you inform me 
that the President had been pleased to express his regret that I was not em- 
powered by my Government to enter into a formal stipulation for the better 
security of vessels of the United States, when meeting with disasters in pas- 
sing between the United States and the Bahama islands, and driven by such 
disasters into British ports. 

It is, I believe, unnecessary that I should tell you that the case of the 
Creole was known in London a few days only before my departure. No 
complaint had at that time been made by Mr. Everett. The subject was 
not, therefore, among those which it was the immediate object of my mission 
to discuss. But at the same time I must admit that, from the moment I 
was acquainted with the facts of this case, I was sensible of all its importance, 
and I should not think myself without power lo consider of some adjustment 
of, and remedy for, a great acknowledged difficulty, if I could see my way 
clearly to any satisfactory course, and if I had not arrived at the conclusion, 
after very anxious consideration, that, for the reasons which I will state, this 
question had better be treated in London, where it will have a much increas- 
ed chance of settlement, on terms likely to satisfy the interests of the United 
States. 

The immediate case of the Creole would be easily disposed of; but in- 
volves a class and description of cases which, for the purpose of affording 
that security you seek for the trade of America through the Bahatua channel, 
brings into consideration questions of law, both national and international, of 
the highest importance ; and, to increase the delicacy and difficulty of the 
subject, public feeling is sensitively alive to everything connected with it. 
These circumstances bring me to the conviction that, although I really be- 
lieve that much may be done to meet the wishes of your Government, the 
means of doing so would be best considered in London, where imiuediate 
reference may "be had to the highest authorities, on every point of delicacy 
and difficulty that may arise. Whatever I might attempl would be more or 
less under the disadvantage of being fettered by apprehensions of responsibil- 
ity, and I nsight thereby be kept within limits which my Government at 
jiome might disregard. In other words, I believe you would have a better 



23 

chance in this settlement with them than with me. I state tliis after some 
imperfect endeavors, by correspondence, to come at satisfactory explanations. 
If I were in this instance trealiiifi^ of ordinary material interests, I should pro- 
ceed with more confidence; but anxious as 1 unfei-rnedly am that all (|ues- 
tions likely to disturb ihe future good understanding between us should be 
averted, 1 strongly recommend this question of the security of the liahama 
channel being referred for discussion in London. 

This opinion is more decidedly confirmed by your very elaborate and im- 
portant argument on the application of the general principles of the law of 
nations to these subjects — an argument to which your authority necessarily 
gives great weight, but in which I would not presume to follow you with my 
own im})erfect means. Great Britain and the United States, covering all the 
seas of the world with their commerce, have the greatest possible interest in 
maintaining sound and pure principles of international law, as well as the 
practice of reciprocal aid and good otiices in all their harbors and possessions. 
Willi respect to the latter, it is satisfactory to know that the disposition of the 
respective Governments and people leaves little to be desired, with the single 
exception of those very delicate and perplexing questions which have recently 
arisen from the state of slavery, and even these seem confined, and likely to 
continue to be confined, to the narrow passage of the Bahama channel. At 
no other part of the British possessions are American vessels with slaves ever 
likely to touch, nor are they likely to touch there otherwise than from the 
pressure of very urgent necessity. The difficulty, therefore, as well as the 
desired remedy, is apparently confined within narrow limits. 

Upon the great general principles affecling this case we do not differ. You 
admit that if slaves, the property of American citizens, escape into British 
territories, it is not expected that they will be restored ; and you may be well 
assured that there is no wish on our part that they should reach our shores, 
or that British possessions should be used as decoys for the violators of the 
laws of a friendly neiglibor. 

When these slaves do reach ns, by whatever means, there is no alternative. 
The present slate of British law is in this respect too well known to require 
repetition, nor need 1 reunnd you (liat it is exactly the same with the laws of 
every part of the United States where a state of slavery is not recognised ; 
and (hat the slave put on shore at Nassau would be dealt \v\\\i ex;Klly as 
would a foreign slave landed, under any circumstances whatever, at Boston. 

But what constitutes the being within British dominion, from which these 
■consequences are to follow? Is a vessel passing through the Bahama chan- 
nel, and forced involuntarily, either from storm or mutiny, into British waters, 
to be so considered ? What power have the authorities of those islands to 
take cognizance of persons or property in such vessels? These are questions 
which you, sir, have discussed at great length, and with evident ability. Al- 
though you have advanced some propositions which rather surprise and startle 
me, I do not pretend to judge them ; but what is very clear is, that great 
principles are involved in a discussion which it would ill become me lightly 
to enter upon ; and I am confirmed by this consideration in wishing that the 
subject be referred to wheie it will be perfectly weighed and examined. 

It behooves the authorities of our two Governments well to guard them- 
selves against establishing by their diplomatic intercourse false precedents and 
principles, and that they do not, for the purpose of meeting a passing diffi- 
culty, set examples which may hereafter mislead the world. 

It is not intended on this occasion to consider in detail the particular in- 



24 

stances which have ^iven rise to these discussions. They have aheady been 
stated and explained. Our object is ralher to look to the means of future 
prevention of such occurrences. That this may be obtained, 1 have Httle 
doubt, ahhough we may not be able immediately to agree on the precise 
stipulations of a treaty. On the part of Great Britain, there are certain great 
principles too deeply rooted in the consciences and sympathies of the people 
for any minister to be able to overlook; and any engagement I might make 
in opposition to them would be instantly disavowed; but, at the same time 
that we maintain our own laws within our own territories, we are bound to 
respect those of our neighbors, and to hsten to every possible suggestion of" 
means of averting from them every annoyance and injury. I have great 
confidence that this may be efl'ectually done in the present instance ; but the 
case to be met and remedied is new, and must not be loo hastily dealt with. 
You may, however, be assured that measures so important for the preserva- 
tion of friendly intercourse between the two countries shall not be neglected. 

In the mecintime, I can engage that instructions shall be given to the 
Governors of her majesty's colonies on the southern borders of the United 
States to execute their own laws with careful attention to the wish of their 
Government to maintain good neighborhood, and that there shall be no 
officious interference with American vessels driven by accident or by 
violence into those ports. The laws and duties of hospitality shall be 
executed, and these seem neither to require nor to justify any further inqui- 
sition into the state of persons or things on hoard of vessels so situated, 
than may be indispensable to enforce the observance of the municipal law 
of the colony, and the proper regulation of its harbors and waters. 

A strict and careful attention to these rules, applied in good faith tO' 
all transactions as they arise, will, I hope and believe, without any aban- 
donment of great and general principles, lead to the avoidance of any 
excitement or agitation on this very sensitive subject of slavery, and, conse- 
quently, of those irritatmg feelings which may have a tendency to bring 
into peril all the great interests connected with the maintenance of peace. 

I further trust that friendly sentiments, and a conviction of the importance 
of cherishing them, will, on all occasions, lead the two countries to consider 
favorably any further arrangements which may be judged necessary for the 
leciprocal protection of their interests. 

I hope, sir, that this explanation on this very important subject will be 
satisfactory to the President, and that he wall see in it no diminution of 
that earnest desire, which you have been pleased to recognise in me, to 
perform my work of reconciliation and friendship ; but that he will rather 
perceive in my suggestion, in this particular instance, that it is made with 
a well-founded hope of thereby better obtaining the object we have in view. 

I beg to renew to you, sir, the assurances of my high consideration. 

ASHBURTON. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, c^c, *^c., ^'c. 



Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 8, 1842. 

My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lord- 
ship's note of the 6th instant, in answer to mine of the 1st, upon the subjecj 



25 

of a stipulation for the better security of Amciican vessels driven by accident 
or carried by force into the British West India ports. 

The President would have been gratified if you had felt youi^self at liberty 
to proceed at once to consider of sonic projicr arrangement, by formal treaty, 
for this object ; but there may be weight in the reasons which you urge for 
referring such mode of stipidation for consideration in London. 

The President places his reliance on those principles of public law which 
were stated in my note to your lordsliip, and which are regarded as equally 
well founded and important; and on your lordship's engagement that in- 
structions shall be given to the Governors of her majesty's colonies to execute 
their own laws wi(h careftd attention to the wish of their Government to 
maintain good neighborhood, and that there shall be no officious interference 
with American vessels driven by accident or by violence into those ports ; 
that the laws and duties of hospitality shall be executed, and that these seem 
neither to require nor to justify any further inquisition into the state of per- 
sons or things on board of vessels so situated than may be indispensable to 
enforce the observance of tlie municipal law of the colony, and the proper 
regulation of its harbors and waters. He indulges the hope, nevertheless, 
that, actuated by a just sense of what is due to the mutual interests of the 
two countries, and the maintenance of a permanent peace between them, 
her majesty's Government will not fail to see the importance of removing, by 
such further stipulations, by treaty or otherwise, as may be found to be ne- 
eessary, all cause of complaint connected with this subject. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship's obedient 
servant, 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

tiORD AsiIBURTOX, ^*C., <^'C., (^C. 



26 



IMPRESSMENT. 



Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State, 

Washi7igio7i, August 8, 1842. 

My Lord: Wc have had several conversations on the subject of imprese- 
nient, but I do not understand that your lordsliip has instructions from your 
Government to negotiate upon it, nor does the Government of the United 
States see any utility in opening such negotiation, unless the Britit-h Govern- 
ment is prepared to renounce the practice in all future wars. 

No cause has produced, to so great an extent, and for so long a period, -dis- 
turbing and irritating influences on the political relations of the United 
States and England as the impressment of seamen by British cruisers from 
American merchant vessels. 

From the commencement of the French revolution to the breaking out 
of the war between the two countries in 1812, hardly a year elapsed without 
loud complaint and earnest remonstrance. A deep feeling of opposition to the 
right claimed, and to the practice exercised under it, and not unfrequently 
exercised without the least regard to what justice and humanity would have 
dictated, even if tlie right itself had been admitted, took possession of the 
public ?Tiind of America, and this feeling, it is well known, co-operated most 
powerfully with other causes to produce the state of hostilities which ensued. 

At different periods, both before and since the war, negotiations have taken 
place between the two Governments, with the hope of finding some means 
of quieting these complaints. At some times, the effectual abolition of the 
practice has been requested and treated of; at other times, its temporary sus- 
pension ; and, at other times again, the liiTiitation of its exercise and some 
security against its enormous abuses. 

A common destiny has attended these efforts; they have all foiled. The 
question stands at this nioment where it stood fifty years ago. The nearest 
approach to a settlement was a convention proposed in 1S03, and which had 
come to the point of signature, when it was broken off in consequence of the 
British Government insisting that the narroni seas should be expressly ex- 
cepted, out of the sphere over which the contemplated stipulations against: 
impressment should extend. The American minister, Mr. King, regarded 
this exception as quite inadmissible, and chose rather to abandon the nego- 
tiation than to acquiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish. 

England asserts the right of impressing British subjects, in time of war, 
out of neutral merchant vessels, and of deciding by her visiting officers, who, 
among the crews of such merchant vessels, are British subjects. She asserts 
this as a legal exercise of the prerogative of the crown ; which prerogative is 
alleged to be founded on the English law of the perpetual and indissoluble 
allegiance of the subject, and his obligation, under all circumstances, and fo 
his whole life, to render military service to the crown whenever required. 

This statement, made in the words of eminent British jurists, shows, at 
once, that the English claim is far broader than the basis or platform on 
which it is raised. The law relied on is English law; the obligations insisted 



.27 

on are obligations existing between the crown of England and its subjects. 
This law and these obligations, it is admitted, may be such as England may 
cJioose they shall be. But then they must be confined to the parties. Im- 
pressment of seaiTien, out of and beyontl English territory, and from on board 
(he ships of other nations, is an interference with the rights of other nations; 
is further, therefore, than English prerogative can legally extend; and ia 
nothing but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of England beyond the do- 
minions and jurisdiction of the crown. The claim asserts an extra-territorial 
authority for the law of IBritish prerogative, and assumes to exercise this ex- 
tra-territorial authority, to the manifest injury and annoyance of the citizens 
and subjects of other States, on board their own vessels on the high seas. 

Every merchant vessel on the seas is rightfully considered as part of the 
territory of the country to which it belongs. The entry, therefore, into such 
vessel, being neutral, by a belligerant, is an act of force, and is, prima faciei 
a wrong, a trespass, which can be justified only when done for some purpose^ 
allowed to form a sufficient justification by the law of nations. But a British 
cruiser enters an American merchant vessel in order to lake therefrom supposed 
British subjects; offering no justification therefor, under the law of nations, 
but claiming the right under the law of England respecting the King's pre- 
rogative. Tliis can not be defended. English soil, English territory, English 
jurisdiction, is the appropriate sphere for the operation of English law. The 
ocean is the sphere of the law of nations; and any merchant vessel on the 
seas is, by that law, under the protection of the laws of her own nation, and 
may claim immunity, unless in cases in which that law allows her to be en- 
tered or visited. 

If this notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent power of the pre- 
rogative, was the law of the world ; if it formed part of the conventional code 
of nations, and was usually practised like the right of visiting neutral ships, 
for the purpose of discovering and seizing enemy property, then iinpressment 
niiffht be defended as a common ris^ht, and there would be no remedy for the 
evil till the national code should be altered. But this is by no means the 
case. There is no such principle incorporated into the code of nations. The 
doctrine stands only as English law" — not as national law; and English law 
ran not be of force beyond English dominion. Whatever duties or relations 
that law" creates between the sovereign and his subjects, can be enforced and 
maintained only withm the realm, or proper possessions or territory of the 
sovereign. There may be quite as just a prerogative right to the property of 
subjects as to their personal services, in an exigency of the State; but no 
Government thinks of controlling by its own laws })roperty of its subjects sit- 
uated abroad; much less does any Government think of entering the territory 
of another power for the purpose of seizing such property and applying it to 
its own uses. As laws, the prerogatives of the crown of England have no 
obligation on persons or property domiciled or situated abroad. 

" When, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unregarded on either 
side of the Atlantic, " we speak of the right of a state to bind its own native 
subjects every w^here, we speak only of its own claim and exercise of sover- 
eignty over them, when they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, and 
not of its right to compel or require obedience to such laws, on the part of 
other nations, within their own territorial sovereignty. On the contrary, every 
nation has an exclusive right to regulate persons and things within its own 
territory, according to its sovereign will and public polity." 

The good sense of these principles, their remarkable pertinency to the sub- 



28 

ect now under consideration, and the extraordinary consequences resulting 
from the British doctrine, are signally manifested by that which we see taking 
place every day. England acknowledges herself over-burdened with popu- 
lation of the poorer classes. Every instance of the emigration of persons of 
those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. England, therefore, encourages 
emigration ; means are notoriously supplied to emigrants to assist their con- 
veyance, from public funds; and the new world, and most especially these 
United States, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus ejected from 
the bosom of their native land by the necessities of tbeir condition. They 
come away from poverty and distress, in over-crcwded cities, to seek employ- 
ment, comfort, and new homes, in a country of free institutions, possessed by 
a kindred race, speaking their own language, and having laws and usages in 
many respects like those to which they have been accustomed ; and a country 
which, upon the whole, is found to possess more attractions for persons of 
iheir character and condition llian any other on the face of the globe. It is 
stated that in the quarter of the year ending with June last, more than twenty- 
six thousand emigrants left the single port of Liverpool for the United States, 
being four or five times as many as left the same port witliin the same period 
for the British colonies and all other parts of the world. Of these crowds of 
emigrants, many arrive in our cities in circumstances of great destitution, and 
the charities of the country, both public and private, are severely taxed to re- 
lieve their. immediate wants. In time they mingle with the new community 
in which they find themselves, and seek means of living; some find employ- 
ment in the cities, others go to the frontiers, to cultivated lands reclaimed 
from the forest; and a greater or less number of the residue, becoming in time 
naturalized citizens, enter into the merchant service, under the flag of their 
adopted countiy. 

Now, my lord, if war should break out between England and a European 
power, can anytiiing be more unjust, anything more irreconcilable to the 
general sentiments of mankind, tlian that England should seek out these 
persons, thus encouraged by her, and compelled by their own condition to 
leave their native homes, tear them away from their new employments, 
their new political relations, and their domestic connexions, and force 
them to undergo the dangers and hardships of military service, for a 
country which has thus ceased to be their own country? Certainly, cer- 
tainly, my lord, there can be but one answer to this question. Is it not far 
more reasonable that England should either prevent such emigration of her 
subjects, or that, if she encourage and promote it, she should leave them, 
not to the embroilment of a double and a contradictory allegiance, but to 
their own voluntary choice, to form such relations, political or social, as 
they see fit, in the country where they are to find their bread, and to the 
laws and institutions of which they are to look for defence and pro- 
tection ? 

A question of such serious importance ought now to be put at rest. If 
the United States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy 
of England annually casts upon their shores — if, by the benign influences 
of their Government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the 
country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it 
easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the en- 
joyment of all civil rights — if all this may be done (and all this is done, 
under the countenance and encouragement of England herself), is it not 
high time, my lord, that, yielding that^ which had its origin in feudal ideas 



29 

as inconsistent with the present state of society, and especially witii the 
intercourse and relations subsisting beiween the old world and the new, 
England should, at length, formally disclaim all right to the services of 
such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct? 

But impressment is subject to objections of a much wider range. If it 
could be justified in its application to thote wlio are declared to be its only 
objects, it still remains true that, in its exercise, it touches the political 
Tights of other governments, and endangers the security of their own native 
subjects and citizens. The sovereignty of the state is concerned in main- 
taining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its merchant ships on 
the seas, except so far as the law of nations justifies intrusion upon that 
possession for special purposes; and all experience has shown thai no 
member of a crew, wherever born, is safe against impressment when a 
ship is visited. 

The evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can hardly be 
overstated, and have ever proved themselves to be such as should lead to 
its relinquishment, even if it were founded in any defensible principle. 
The difficulty of discriminating between English subjects and American 
citizens has always been found to be great, even when an honest purpose 
of discrimination has existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, having 
necessity for men, is apt to be a summary judge, and his decisions will be 
quite as significant of his own wants and his own power as of the truth 
and justice of the case. An extract from a letter of Mr. King, of the 13th 
of April, 1797, to the American Secretary of State, shows something of 
the enormous extent of these wrongful seizures : 

"Instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal cases, I have," 
says he, "since the month of July past, made application for the discharge, 
from British m:Mi-of-war, of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, 
stating themselves to be Americans, have claimed my interference. Of this 
number eighty-six have been ordered by the Admiralty to be discharged, 
thirty-seven mure have been detained as British subjects or as American 
volunteers, or for want of proof that they are Americans, and to my appli- 
cations for the discharge of the remaining one hundred and forty-eight, I 
have received no answer— the ships on board of which these seamen were 
detained having, in many instances, sailed before an examination was 
made in consequence of my application. 

" It is certain that some of those who have applied to me are not Ameri- 
can citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, few, and the evidence, 
exclusive of certificates, has been such as, in most cases, to satisfy me that 
the applicants were real Americans, who have been forced into the British 
service, and who, with singular constancy, have generally persevered in re- 
fusing pay or bounty, though in some instances they have been in service 
more than two years." 

But the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to its imme- 
diate subjects or the individuals on whom it is practised. Vessels suffer from 
the weakening of their crews, and voyages are often delayed, and not unfre- 
quenily broken up, by subtraction from the number of necessary hands by im- 
pressment. And what is still of greater and more general moment, the fear 
of impressment has been found to create great difficulty in obtaining sailors^ 
for the American merchant service in times of European war. Seafaring 
men, otherwise inclined to enter into that service, are, as experience hae 
shown, deterred by the fear of finding themselves ere long in compulsory 



30 

military service in British ships of war. Many instances have occurred, fully 
established in proof, in which rajv seamen, natives of the United States, fresh 
from the fields of agriculture, entering for the first time on shipboard, have 
been impressed before they made the land, placed on the decks of British 
men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before they could obtain their 
release, or revisit their country and their homes. Such instances become 
known, and their effect in discouraging young men from engaging in the 
merchant service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered at. 
More than all, my lord, the practice of impressment, whenever it has existed, 
has produced not conciliation and good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, 
and animosity, between the two great commercial countries of the world. 

In the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war — a condition 
so favorable for dispassionate consideration — England herself has evidently 
seen the harshness of impressment, even when exercised on seamen in her 
own merchant service, and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to re- 
nounce the power or to abolish the practice, yet, at least, to supersede its ne- 
cessity by other means of manning the royal navy, more compatible with 
justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit 
and sentiments of the age. 

Under these circumstances, the Government of the United States has used 
the occasion of your lordship's pacific mission to review this whole subject, 
and to bring it to your notice and that of your Government. It has reflected 
on the past, pondered the condition of the present, and endeavored to anti- 
cipate, so far as might be in its power, the probable future ; and I am now to 
communicate to your lordship the result of these deliberations. 

The American Government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of 
impressing seamen from American vessels can not hereafter be allowed to 
take place. That practice is founded on principles which it does not recog- 
nise, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and 
of such formidable magnitude, as can not be submitted to. 

In the early disputes between the two Governments on this so long-con- 
tested topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the 
seals of this Department declared, that " the simplest rule will be, that the 
vessel being American shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such." 

Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a 
careful reconsideration now had, of the whole subject at a moment when the 
passions are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists (o bias the 
judgment, have fully convinced this Government that this is not only the 
simplest and best, but the only ride, which can be adopted and observed, 
consistendy with the rights and honor of the United States and the security 
of their citizens. That rule announces therefore, what will hereafter be the 
principle maintained by their Government. In every regularly documented 
American merchant vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection 
in the flag which is over them. 

This announcement is not made, my lord, to revive useless recollections 
of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which have been, in a great de- 
gree, smothered by many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to' 
extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into 
flame. The communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake of 
peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious conviction that high inter- 
ests of both nations require that this so-long-contested and controverted sub- 
ect should now be finally put to rest. I persuade myself,, my lord, that you 



31 

will do justice to this fraak and sincere avosval of motives, and that you will" 
communicate your sentiments, in this respect, to your Govenmient. 

This letter closes, my lord, on my purl, our othcial correspondence ; and 
I gladly use the occasion to offer you the assurance of my high and sincere 
regard. 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

Lord AsHEVRTON, ^"c, (Sf'c, 6)'c. 



Lord Ashburion io Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 9, 1842. 

Sir : The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 8th instant, on 
the suhject of impressment, shall be transnutted without delay to my Gov- 
ernment, and will, you may be assured, receive from them the deliberate at- 
tention which its importance deserves. 

The object of my mission was mainly the settlement of existing subjects of 
difference, and no differences have or could have arisen of late years with re- 
spect to impressment, because the practice has since the peace wholly ceased 
and can not, consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning hei 
raajesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed. 

Desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to anticipate even 
possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of the anxiety of the American 
people on this grave subject of past irritation, I should be sorry in any way 
to discourage the attempt at some settlement of if, and, although without 
authority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of my mission, 
I entertain a confident hope that this task may be accomplished, when un- 
dertaken, with the spirit of candor and conciliation which has marked all our 
late negotiations. 

It not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any agreement 
on this subject, I may be permitted to abstain from noticing, at length, your 
very ingenious arguments relating to it, and from discussing the graver mat- 
ters of constitutional and international law growing out of them. These 
sufiiciently show that the question is one requiring calm consideration ; 
though I must, at the same time, admit that they prove a strong necessity of 
some settlement for the preservation of that good understanding which, I 
trust, we may flatter ourselves that our joint labors have now succeeded in 
establishing. 

1 am well aware that the laws of our two countries maintain opposite prin- 
ciples respecting allegiance to the sovereign. America, receiving every year^ 
by thousands, the emigrants of Europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her 
condition of the right of transferring allegiance at will. The laws of Great 
Britain have maintained, from all time, the opposite doctrine. The duties of 
allegiance are held to be indefeasible, and it is believed that this doctrine, 
Tjnder various modifications, prevails in most, if not in all, the civilized states 
of Europe. 

Emigration, the modern mode by which the population of the world peace- 
ably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and eminently for the benefit of 
humanity. The fertile deserts of America are gradually advancing to the 
highest state of cultivation and production, while the emigrant acquires com- 
fort which his own confined home could not afford him. 



If there were anything in our laws or our practice on either side tending to' 
impede this march of providential humanity, we could not be too eager to 
provide a remedy ; but as this does not appear to be the case, we may safely 
leave this part of the subject without indulging in abstract speculations, hav- 
ing no material practical application to matters in discussion between us. 

But it must be admitted tiiat a serious practical question does arise, or 
rather has existed, from practices fornierly attending the mode of manning the 
British navy in times of war. The principle is, that all subjects of the crown 
are in case of necessity bound to serve their country, and the sea-faring man 
is naturally taken for the naval service. This is not, as is sometimes sup- 
posed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical government, but one founded 
on the natural duty of every man to defend the life of his country; and all 
the analogy of your laws would lead to the conclusion that the same princi- 
ple would hold good in the United States if their geographical position did 
not make its application unnecessarv. 

The very anomalous condition of the two countries with relation to each 
other here creates a serious difficulty. Oiir people are not distinguishable ; 
and owing to the peculiar habits of sailois, our vessels are very generally 
manned from a common stock. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to 
execute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for the exist- 
ence of the country, without risk of injury to others. The extent and im- 
portance ot those injuries, however, are so formidable that it is admitted that 
some remedy should, if possible, be applied ; at all events, it must be fairly 
and honestly attempted. It is true that during the continuance of peace no 
practical grievance can arise; but it is also true that it is for that reason the 
proper season for the calm and deliberate consideration of an important sub- 
ject. I have much reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement respecting 
it may be made, so as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety ; and I will 
only further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my Govern- 
ment favorably to consider all matters having for their object the promoting 
and maintaining undisturbed kind and friendly feelings with the Unitea 
States. 

I beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence with you con- 
nected with my mission, to express the satisfaction I feel at its successful ter- 
mination, and to assure you of my high consideration and personal esteem 
and regard. 

ASHBURTON. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, 



t «4 



»] 



1 



V s 



- V ' <• - 







.0^ c 










» • » \ ^ 






1 

m 



U 






■> 






= G 



Sr 



^' 



^--^ v^ 



o (« o 



■'-2^^'-= 
"»,-> 



■-%<? 
.♦^^•5 






iiv^ 



O M O 












^^ 










. ^^^<?^ 






w 









': .y^^ 



<^ 



^. 



-:/. <^^' 



t:^ 



,<> 



m^' '^ ^^ ^ 






t 




cP^ ^° 


"-^^ 


0^ 




/ 


°^. 


:# 

-i' 


* ' 


• o. 


cv 


^ 


5n 


-f^. 



A 



^^. 






cO" 









-^-^ 



y-- r< 



&' 



V\ERT 

BOOKBINDING 

Granfville Pa 

Jan fee 1989 

vie -e Qoj'". Sc^r.; 



>' 



' • ^ 



f^ 




' 'i': 









